Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Local rules instead of global censorship

redecentralize.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 221 posts

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#101

Post by cygx »

morceauxdebois wrote: post #89
hypertele-Xii wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Finland maintains a healthy distance to the west's extreme capitalism. Healthcare is free. Education is free (and mandatory). Housing is free. Water is free. Electricity is free. Internet is free. The government owns the only railroad. Many governments, including the current one, consist of majority Social Democratic Party. Convicted criminals can still vote. All males are drafted into the army. Newborns receive a fr…

None of those are policies exclusive to a socialist system. But what do i know about Social Democracy, im just Swedish.

But you do know that historically, 'Social Democratic' is just a name chosen by European socialist parties for themselves? The membership list[1] of the Party of European Socialists (known as Europeiska socialdemokratiska partiet in Swedish) reflects this to this day.

It is of course true that a Social Democracy is not a fully socialist society, but that discussion was already had last century during the Revisionismusdebatt kicked off by Eduard Bernstein in 1896.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_European_Socialists#M...

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#102

Post by hypertele-Xii »

emptysongglass wrote: post #83
krysp wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like you and everyone in the replies to your comment may have misconstrued what the parent meant; if he's from Europe, socialist isn't a dirty word like the US. In most of Europe it's quite a positive thing to say your government is more socialist, or has more socialist policies

It should be mentioned that Denmark, which has often been pointed to as an example of a successful socialist country is not socialist. The country's politicians vociferously protest against this label and going by Engels' own definition, the country is not at all socialist. It is extremely capitalist with classical hierarchies of business ownership. High tax, free healthcare and free schooling does not make a country…

So what does make a country even remotely socialist, in your opinion?

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#103

Post by lhnz »

The problem, I feel, is that both centralisation and decentralisation are a danger to democracy.

Centralisation because it enables elites within the tech/media/state to conspire together to wield much more power within a "democracy" than such a system needs to run equitably.

Decentralisation because it allows foreign actors to more-or-less do military manouvres within social media in order to cause particular outcomes (e.g. polarisation, destabilisation, regime change, forming opinions within a population that are economically beneficial to the attacking country, etc).

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#104

Post by taffer »

hypertele-Xii wrote: post #102
emptysongglass wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be mentioned that Denmark, which has often been pointed to as an example of a successful socialist country is not socialist. The country's politicians vociferously protest against this label and going by Engels' own definition, the country is not at all socialist. It is extremely capitalist with classical hierarchies of business ownership. High tax, free healthcare and free schooling does not make a country…

So what does make a country even remotely socialist, in your opinion?

Workers owning the means of production.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#106

Post by taffer »

hypertele-Xii wrote: post #96
taffer wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Electricity is free That's hard to believe. Can I just go there (as an EU citizen) and mine bitcoins for free?

Free to a point . The government has a (supposedly) reasonable ceiling for electricity consumption. I actually hit that ceiling a while back, but got the decision overturned by complaining about it. I'm running a fair bit of tech 24/7 including electric heating (given Finland winters), no bitcoins though. I've yet to study the exact nature of the EU with regards to social support, so I don't know if you could just co…

I don't understand your last sentence. Is electricity free only for those who collect social welfare?

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#107

Post by hypertele-Xii »

taffer wrote: post #104
hypertele-Xii wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what does make a country even remotely socialist, in your opinion?

Workers owning the means of production.

That sounds a lot more socialist than just "remotely". According to Wikipedia, it's the defining characteristic of socialism.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#108

Post by hypertele-Xii »

taffer wrote: post #106
hypertele-Xii wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free to a point . The government has a (supposedly) reasonable ceiling for electricity consumption. I actually hit that ceiling a while back, but got the decision overturned by complaining about it. I'm running a fair bit of tech 24/7 including electric heating (given Finland winters), no bitcoins though. I've yet to study the exact nature of the EU with regards to social support, so I don't know if you could just co…

I don't understand your last sentence. Is electricity free only for those who collect social welfare?

Yes. You have to be a Finnish citizen with no income to qualify.

Everyone not participating in the capitalist economy (by owning business or being employed at one) is essentially a government/military reserve employee on indefinite paid leave receiving a budget that covers virtually all living expenses to quite a reasonable standard. And it's baseline, every citizen eligible, other obligations withstanding. You'd have to really make a mess of your life to not live comfortably.

The only downside is, if there's war, I have to give my life for the country. Which, given Finland's history (defensiveness and neutrality), seems like a good deal to me. Most men get actively recalled to military trainings; I've personally been exempt during peacetime.

I could indeed mine bitcoins for free. But that'd be a gross misuse of my time and resources. I'd rather create something meaningful than literally waste electricity just to prove that I have it (the idiotic quality of proof-of-work cryptocurrency).

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#109

Post by cies »

contravariant wrote: post #77
cies wrote: post #58

I believe the premise of the title. But the main question should be: why? And the article does not really answer that, well beyond censorship. I think the reason why centralization is a danger to democracy, is because of lobbying. Lobbying is much easier in a centralized power structure. See how much lobbying goes on in and around the power centers of this world: DC, Brussels, London. Lobby is power for money, democr…

I don't think you really need that much of a justification to claim that centralized power is a danger to democracy. Democracy is to place power into the hands of each individual, every form of centralized power necessarily pulls this power away from people and into the hands of a limited number of individuals. Democracy isn't so much threatened but actually harmed by the mere existence of centralized power.

> Democracy isn't so much threatened but actually harmed by the mere existence of centralized power.

What's the essential difference?

Post reply on HN